By the way, just to clarify one point, it is the CHANGING of views from what is right to what is popular, convenient, or "inoffensive" that makes one a moral coward, not the mere holding of a popular, convenient, or "inoffensive" view. If someone has always expressed the view that a man can somehow "marry" a man, that doesn't make him a coward. It may make him wrong, but not a coward.

"Tony Perkins attacked the Cheney family, saying the fact that they have a lesbian daughter is no reason they should support gay marriage." Tony Perkins told the truth, there. Having a gay family member is NOT a reason to support gay marriage. In fact, if you change your public views on the subject just because your son or daughter or brother or sister or niece or nephew or aunt or uncle or best friend "comes out" you appear to be a moral coward, unwilling to stand up for what is right, even IF your family member disagrees with you. Despite what you appear to believe, there's a big difference between not changing your moral views and, for example, disinheriting your son. The latter is absolutely, 100%, and in all other ways wrong. The former is minimum expected behavior.

"The SPLC’s own statement on the subject confirms that it takes a lot of hatred to make that list: 'Anti-gay hate groups are organizations that go beyond mere disagreement with homosexuality by subjecting gays and lesbians to campaigns of personal vilification.'" Actions speak louder than words, and the words of that statement are empty. The truth is that "mere disagreement with homosexuality" usually manifests itself in telling the Truth about the sinfulness of homosexual acts. Declaring a behavior sinful, which is all most "anti-gay" groups ever do, is, to the SPLC and others, a "campaign of personal villification." Thus, mere disagreement with homosexuality IS enough to warrant the SPLC's hate.

" NOM television ads that helped defeat marriage equality in New York in 2009 were trotted out again when the issue was up for a vote in 2011 -- even ignoring the findings of fact-checking websites that much of the information was false." Citation, please.

"We have seen those "campaigns of personal vilification" in every state ballot campaign on gay marriage." Citation, please.

"Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council was purchasing the Klan’s mailing list from former KKK leader David Duke to use it for fundraising." Citation, please.

"that most homosexuals are pedophiles" Citation, please.

It's not about freedom. It's not about equality. We have both of those in abundance for gays, already. In fact, it's all about special privileges for a certain group based on their chosen behavior and the tyranical control of the rest of us who do not share their views.

Here's the truth about same-sex "marriage": It will not affect whether or not gays may act on their passions. It will not affect whether or not gays may commit to each other in a long-term relationship. It will not affect the educational or earning potential of gays. It will not affect whether or not gay couples (or gay singles) can adopt. It will not affect how crimes against gays are or should be prosecuted. It will not affect whom gays can put in their wills, their medical powers of attorney, or as their life insurance beneficiaries. It will not affect whether or not gays can serve in the military. It will not allow gays to come "out of the closet." It will not grant gays children. It WILL (and has) cause charities difficulties when they are forced to provide services to gay couples in violation of their religious teachings - or close their doors. It WILL force religious business owners to violate their religious teachings by providing "married" benefits to effectively unmaried couples or violate discrimination laws. It WILL force parents to counter morally harmful examples that their children will see and hear about. It WILL (and has) chill freedoms of religion, speech, and the press. It WILL give activists more ammunition to falsely counter the Church's moral teachings ("We're 'married', that makes our sex moral.") It WILL force taxpayers to subsidize the gay lifestyle through marital tax breaks. It will likely lead to government (either through legislation or (more likely) the courts) requiring that churches provide the same services for gays as for normal people, including recognizing and performing "marriages."

Roe v. Wade did not, contrary to the Left's proclamations, legislate abortion on demand any time, any where, and later laws and court decisions have borne that out. What it did was rule unconstitutional state (and presumably federal) laws banning abortion early in the pregnancy. (Not talking about the correctness or morality of the ruling, just what it said). This fetal pain act may be abhorrent to the Left, it may violate the consciences of all those who practice the idolatry of Government and of Self, it may not (will not, in all likelihood) succeed now with a pro-abortion Senate and a radical pro-abortion President, but it is neither contrary to Roe v. Wade nor unconstitutional for what it protects. That said, I would so much prefer to see such laws enacted at the state level, because that's where they truly belong. The Constitution is silent on abortion. Therefore, with a face-value reading of the Constitution, the Federal Government (including the Federal bench) ought not be regulating abortion either to restrict the practice or to restrict states from legislating as they see fit, up to and including total bans on the practice, except where it pertains to crossing state lines to avoide state laws. The biggest problems we have in this country come from the overreliance on Washington to right perceived wrongs at the state and local level. Whether it's healthcare, the environment, abortion, homosexuality, speed limits, fuel economy, energy policy, labor policy, drugs, or education, the FEDERAL government should stay out of it (except for circumstances involving the conduct of business across state lines). They should (and are required to, if you actually read the document) only do that which the Constitution specifically authorizes them to do. It is the states' (or the people's) responsibility and authority to handle the minutiae